A WORD ABOUT COMMENTS, ESPECIALLY THE MOST RECENT ONE.

SOMEONE MADE A COMMENT ON THE MOST RECENT POST ON THIS BLOG; TO WIT: "ISLAM EXPLAINED" This comment was made anonymously, and for the purposes of this post I am dropping the editorial "we" and addressing the matter personally.

I do not require folks to identify themselves when they make comments. But the commentator addressing the aforementioned post said: "Catch AIDS and die like you deserve you filthy faggot". I deleted that comment, but on reflection I have decided to put it up front here so the world can see what an ass the commentor is. I have the following to say to this person:

YOU, SIR, ARE A FUCKING COWARD. I put my name to my statements. You did not put your name to yours. You are a pissant, bub. An inconsequential pissant who is scared to death to put his name to his own words. I dare you, you despicable pussy, to post the comment with your name on it. Of course you will not.

I do not hide my name or who I am. I do not say or do or post one single thing on the Internet or anywhere else that I would not be quite happy to see published on the front page of the local newspaper. YOU however seem to think you can hide behind the Internet. You are a sissyboy. There are faggots galore who could knock you into next week, and you are obviously scared shitless. You poor pathetic little pussyboy. Go suck your thumb.

ISLAM EXPLAINED

WE AT THE ALEXANDRIA DAILY POOP HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE TERRORIST MASSACRE AT FT. HOOD, KILLEEN, TEXAS because we believe suffficient has been written and said by persons closer to the investigation than we are. However many people do not realize that the globe is caught up in a famly feud that makes the Hatfields and McCoys look like an episode of "Everybody Loves Raymond". Here is how the whole shebang we are in now got started:

ONCE UPON A TIME ABOUT 4,000 YEARS AGO there was a man named Abraham who married a woman named Sarah. Christians, Jews, and Moslems claim Abraham as the founder of their respective Faiths. Well, Abraham and Sarah were married for years and no luck with kids. So Sarah gave Abraham permission to ssleep with her maid so that he might have an heir. Abraham did so, and the maid, Hagar, gave birth to a little boy named Ishmael.

BUT SARAH BECAME JEALOUS OF HAGAR and threw her and the boy out of the house after smacking Hagar around. Now God, it is believed, had promised Abraham that He, God, would "Make of" Abraham "a great multitude". He also gave this promise to Ishmael. Anyway Sarah then herself became prefgnant by Abraham and bore him a son named Isaac. Then Sarah let Haagar come back into the house. They never really got along after that, though......

AND SO IT WAS THAT ISSAC BECAME THE FATHER OF JOSEPH, THE PATRIARCH OF ISRAEL AND THE JEWS, from whom would come Jesus and Christianity. Ishmael became the patriarch of the nomadic Arab tribes, who went about worshipping various versions of the Sumerian gods Baal and Molech.

FAST FORWARD TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED YEARS OR SO. An Arab named Mohammed had a desire to unite all the Arab people, who fought each other over who had the best Baal and/or who Baal liked best; as well as over pastures and wells and just about anything else they could think of. Now Mohammed was nothing if not observant; and he observed that the Jews and the Christians seemed to have their acts pretty much together. And he divined that the concept of one God meant a few hundred less gods to fight about.

AND SO MOHAMMED HAD A MASTER STROKE OF INSPIRATION. He picked and chose verses from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures and mixed in some uniquely Arab viewpoints to make the whole thing go down well with Arabs; and created a religious text called the Koran, which he peddled as having been divinely revealed to he, Mohammed. In another masterpiece of political acumen, he had the various tribes deposit their idols to be "imprisioned" in the Kaaba Stone in Mecca. That way they could still be kinda-sorta bowing to the old gods when they faced Mecca to pray. (We bet you didn't know what was inside that big thing, did you??) For stubborn folks, there was the famous "conversion by the sword".

HOWEVER ISLAM'S BIGGEST APPEAL TO THE ARABS WAS AN APPEAL OF GROUP VICTIMHOOD. Ishmael, said Mohammed, was Abraham's Firstborn Son and Issaac had stolen the Blessings of God that passed through Abraham, and so you see no wonder the Jews and Christians were doing so well while the Arabs wandered the desert. The lousy Jews stole the Arab birthright to rule the planet. The whole business got out of hand rather quickly. Things got rather bloody in a lot of places, and cracks were developing in Islam itself.

THEN, WITHOUT HAVING BOTHERED TO NAME HIS SUCCESSOR AS HEAD OF ISLAM ON EARTH NOR TO DESIGNATE A PROCESS FOR CHOOSING ONE, MOHAMMAD DIED. This split Islam into two warrring camps: The Shia who believe the leader must be a descendant of Mohammed; and the Sunni who believe he should be chosen by the Imams. And these two split up into various sects. And the sons of Ishmael continue to fight the sons of Issaac (when they are not fighting each other) to this day.

NOW THIS WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO MUCH MORE THAN YOUR AVERAGE FAMILY FIGHT OVER WHO GETS GRANDPA'S HOUSE AND CAR except that this whole mess happens to have been plopped down on top of the largest deposits of energy reserves on the planet. Now the whole world has been dragged into this deadly family feud, and the dangers and consequenses are enourmous.

ALL THIS, because 4,000 years ago a married man named Abraham slept with a woman other than his wife. It is a real corker, isn't it??

WE GOTCHA SPORTS!!! ---- RIGHT HERE!!!!

IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED TO US THAT A GOOD WAY OF INCREASING OUR READERSHIP WOULD BE TO INCLUDE A "SPORTS COLUMN". Now while the title of this collection of - well, whatever - is titled "The Alexandria Daily Poop"; we rather doubt anyone takes a laptop into the crapper to read us. (We do not doubt that there are those who communicate electronically whilst relieving themselves, we have beheld a "Twitter" message consisting of the words : "still pooping"; and we are NOT making this up.)

ACTUALLY however we have an aversion to sports for several reasons. When we were 14 or so and in a game of sandlot football, we caught a pass interception. And promptly ran it into our own team's end zone. On our last visit to our hometown we ran into an old classmate and the first thing he mentioned was that long-ago mistake. Forty two years is a long time not to live something down. But our aversion to sports is not solely due to this embarrasssing incident.

NOR IS IT SOLELY DUE to the abysmal performance of the "local" football and baseball teams (the Washington Redskins and the Washington Nationals, respectively). A clue to our aversion, however, can be obtained by noticing the quote marks around "local" above.

THE WORDS TO THE "REDSKINS THEME SONG" include the words "Fight on 'til you have won Sons of Washington!". Yeah, right. The last "son of Washington" was (correct me if I am wrong) Sonny Juergenson; and he was (again correct me if I am wrong but with that accent...) a hick from the Maryland suburbs. That;s like calling us a "son of Alexandria" when in fact we were born in Indianapolis and grew up in Huber Heights, Ohio. Whatever these Redskins are, they are not sons of anywhere NEAR Washington DC (nor the vicinity). Moreover what they mostly are and have been for several years and a half dozen coaches (or more, we have stopped keeping track) a bunch of showboating primadonnas with one eye on the TV cameras when both eyes should be on the game.

SIMILARLY OUR "BASEBALL TEAM" the Washington Nationals is actually a team from the Northern Autonomous Territory (AKA "Canada") whose record was so abysmal that the team was renamed and the stats jettisoned. Or maybe "Expos" is exactly what a Washington pol wants to avoid. In any event, another bunch of out of towners posing as the home team. And not much there to root root root for, unless you want to root in the ground with your nose for their standings

BASKETBALL?? The old "Capitol Bullets" had their name changed to the "Washington Wizards" by folks who were concerned about the violence in the National Capital City. Well, the violence continues unnabated but the "Wizards" are becoming legendary for transforming success into failure. They ought to be re-renamed the "Reverse Merlins"

HOCKEY!!! Yeah, we got a pretty good hockey team. Bunch of goddamned Russians like some REAL AMERICANS MANAGED TO DEFEAT AT LAKE PLACID IN 1980 but at least they manage to win a few.

There is solace, however, in the fact that the teams which beat the pants off "our guys" are not really "their guys" either. Players criss-cross the Nation (and the globe!) either being "draft picks" or whoring themselves independently as "free agents' being bought and sold by representatives of consortiums or dumbasses like Redskins owner Danny Snyder.

WE DO NOT DOUBT THAT ATHLETIC ENDEAVORS ARE DEMANDING and that watching skilled competition is exciting. But for all any of it really means anymore, what with the "home team" being from everywhere but "home" and with the players being called "role models" except when they are staging dogfights, injecting steroids, shooting themselves acidentally in nightclubs etc; the teams might as well be called "Western District 1" or "Eastern District 4".

THEREFORE this is the first and the last time we will write of such twaddle on these Epages. Of all human endeavor, professional sports is perhaps the most over rated and least consequential, or at least so say we at the Alexandria Daily Poop.

TOFOOEY

ON A RECENT EPISODE OF THE "LARS LARSON" TALK SHOW WE HAD OCCASION TO HEAR NOTED CONSERVATIVE ROCK STAR TED NUGENT expound on the flaws in "pacifist" thinking. Ted pointed out that for anybody to eat EVEN TOFU, living things had to die; that bugs and gophers and such had to be eradicated from the soyabean patch so as to ensure that they did not eat the food before humans did. At a minmum these beings were denied food and died of starvation, and in most instances they were killed outright; all so some "nipple-pierced wierdo can eat tofu and say he's not harming anything"

NOW OF COURSE TED IS RIGHT, bur we got to thinking about various responses that might be posited by members of the Left and the Vegan crowd and/or parroted by the jejune youngsters these evil people decieve. And the first thing to come to mind was "organic Vegan" gardening wherein "natural" repellents are used to dissuade uninvited guests from the soybean harvest. Well, other beings - and according to Vegan theory, an aphid's life is as valuable as a human child's - STILL starve to death. But let's just say there is something called "common-sense" Veganism. There isn't, of course; but just for the sake of argument....

SO. WITH "NATURAL REPELLENTS" AND NETS TO KEEP OUT THE STARVING BUNNYKINS (and assuming there is some way to deal with gophers and moles) and an intense amount of labor in growing and processing, the end result is "certified organic Vegan tofu". Now, if your mission in doing all of this was to get everyone to eat "harm-free" tofu, we would think that it might be offered at the same price as "evil tofu" and that greater sales volume would make up the profit difference, or even (Leftie Vegans being by and large rabidly anti-Capitalistic) just provide enough to keep the old tofu commune producing. Yes, we would think so. But we would be wrong.

SUCH VARIETIES OF TOFU EXIST and they cost much more than ordinary capitalist-produced tofu. These chunks of soy protien are almost invariably wrapped with labels featuring sunrises and buttercups and butterflies and labelled "Organic" or "Artisanal" or some such. W.C. Fields would be at awe at such a scam. "Artisanal" tofu!! What a crock. (and some of it is in fact sold by the crock!) You see, these tie-dyed throwbacks need all that extra cash to convert their Mercedes to run on marijuana-seed oil or some such crapola.

NOT THAT THE REST OF US OUGHT TO BE GADDING ABOUT WHEREVER WE WANT in a car fuelled by cannabis byproduct or anything else. According to the Vegan Left, we need to cram ourselves as tightly together as possible and rely on whatever shops are "in walking distance" to (hopefully) provide what we need (which the Left will tell us what that consists of). We are baffled, given the "peace and love" mentality professed by the Left, why they have this attitude. All experience has shown that, the closer human beings are forced to live to one another, the greater the potential for conflict; and the more "diverse" the crowded population the greater the potential for violence. There is a good reason why God confounded Human speech and stopped the building of the "Tower of Babel".

WE DISPARAGE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS; and we certainly do not say that there is a mighty "Vegan Left" conspiracy to take over the planet or even these United States. What we face here is a situation in which a mixed bag of individuals have been inspired - brainwashed in most cases - by two men in history: Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky (who was himself inspired by Marx).

Karl Marx of course was (along with Freiderich Engels) the founder of the political philosophy of communism. In fact, the word "capitalism" is itself a Marxist invention. The linchpin of Marxist philosophy is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". And we at the Alexandria Daily Poop must agree that ideally that would be just great. Except that there has to be some way of determining what those abilities and needs are. And someone has to do the sorting. After all, if you have twenty individuals whose best ability is the manufacture of lamps trying to meet the needs of fifty blind people, there's a problem. And how often have you said, "I need a vacation!!"? Well, says you. The Marxist authorities might just say otherwise.

AND SO HOW DO YOU DIVERT THE TALENTS OF A LAMPMAKER TO SATISFY THE NEEDS OF A BLIND MAN? The Marxist answer is "re-training". But what if the lampmaker is quite happy to make lamps? Well, this is the reasoning behind the Soviet "GULAG" system. The lampmaker, being resistant to being retrained, must be harshly and expediently re-educated. And if the "re-education" results in his death, it will be an example to his fellows who; if they are at all concerned about their own hides, quickly fall into line and learn to produce canes and seeing-eye dogs. And if a dearth of lamps results from this, the elite rulers can then claim a savings of electricity costs. A win-win situation unless you are eating dog-doo soup in Siberia. That is communism.

"Socialism" is nothing else but the larval stage of communism. But and especially to the young words have exaggerated meaning. "Socialist" and "Liberal" sound much more agreeable and comfortable than "strict" and "conservative". Famously, in their hit song "Chicago" (which was about the "Chicago 7" trials of the 1968 Democrat Convention Protest leadership) the group "Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young ("CSNY" or David Crosby, Steven Stills, Graham Nash, and Neil Young) sang these lyrics:

"Rules and regulations, who needs them?"

Indeed. BUT from the very same then-kids who now run this nation comes the chant for more and more rules and regulations. This, while the chanters disparage "strict constructionalism" in "interpreting the Constitution". We are at a loss. "Strict"= restrictive=bad=evil; While "Liberal"=regulation=need for strict enforcement=restrictive=good??

The popular music group "Tears for Fears" put it succinctly: "Everybody Wants to Rule the World". And there has been no truer statement ever made. And here is where Saul Alinsky comes in.

Saul Alinsky was a goddamned Communist who wrote a book called "Rules for Radicals" (previously mentioned on this web log). Alinsky's proposition was that "power" must be taken from the "Haves" and given to the "have nots". Now this is a splendid example of "circular logic" since what Alinsky meant by "Haves" and "have-nots" is those who have and do not have "power". This absolutely begs for an answer to the question: If those who have power are evil by lief of their posession of power; and those who have not power are good because they do not posess it; then what net good can result from a reversal of the situation? And let us suppose that Alinsky meant not power but material goods? Should the rich keep their material goods but surrender power to the "have-nots"? What else will the "have-nots" use this power for other than to forcibly confiscate the wealth of the "haves"? Thus making them - according to Alinsky - virtuous "have nots" while the erstwhile "have-nots" morph into evil, parasitic "haves".

Actually, "Haves" vs "Have-nots" is a false dichotomy. We have seen in our experience the estate of a very wealthy lawyer - one to whom we were delivering about ten suitcases full of documents for him to work on over the weekend. And the estate was a marvellous thing. An Olympic-size swimming pool and a tennis court, and the house so large we mistook it for a church of some kind. And we realized as we watched this harried individual sign for the buttload of work we had delivered; that he would not be doing any swimming on Saturday. But we would; and perhaps a bit of fishing as well. We suppose we might have the best of both worlds - the freedom to swim and fish plus lots of money to buy better fishing tackle and even overnight accomodations to extend our weekend - if we could forcibly take from that lawyer all of his wealth, leaving him in a truly "have-not" state. But then we would be one of the "haves"; and God forbid he might read a copy of "Rules for Radicals"!

Ideals have their place. And in a perfect Universe there would be plenty of everything for everyone. Indeed we believe in an Almighty God who has unlimited supplies of everything and who can make unlimited quantities of anything, who overflows with everything and more. And furthermore, this same God is the only being in the Universe who is capable of doling out these goodies in any way even approximating Karl Marx's ideal. Yet the followers of Marx deny Him, or worse seek to subjugate His worship to their own selves. The modern Left consists not so much in a "global Communist conspiracy" - although great and small collusions of leftists abound - as in groups of people who have made contributions great and small to a false god -- an idol -- upon which they place their various faiths and bow down to.

What Alinsky meant by "haves and have nots" was and is mainly the American very wealthy and very poor. But by global standards, all but the very poorest one or two percent of Americans are richer than Henry VIII. Here in Alexandria, Virginia we have "Public Housing" containing "the poor" that is well above the standard of living for a middle-class family in, say. Hyderabad, India (where a family of Missionaries of our aquaintance went to teach the locals how to use "Squatty Potties" rather than just poop in the roadside). Only in America does a person who flushes his toilet with drinking water consider himself "underpriveleged"; and yet it is such as these to whom Alinsky ascribed the term "have nots".

And let us not forget that the current "President" Obama has a family member - HIS OWN BROTHER - who lives in poverty in Kenya, in a hut made of mud and sticks; and who subsists on one lousy dollar per month. Yet this same "President" who professes "Hope" for all America and for the world's billions; does not spare from his own - and considerable - wealth a measly double sawbuck to better the existence of his own blood relative. Yet Obama is an apostle of Alinsky.

As are most of the makers and sellers of "organic Artisinal Vegan Tofu". And we have nothing against tofu, we have eaten it and have even had some very tasty vegetarian cuisine; although we dined on such fare not to be morally superior but rather because we enjoyed the taste of it. Still, purporting to champion the "have nots" over the "haves"; quite like championing the gophers over the starving humans; necessarily means placing oneself in a position above them both; which means usurping the very Throne of God Himself.

"Everybody wants to rule the world". To-Phooey.

A GREAT AND MOST APPROPRIATE HONOR

YES, DEAR READERS, YOU NEED NOT PINCH YOURSELVES, WE AT THE ALEXANDRIA DAILY POOP REALLY DO BELIEVE that the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to "President" Barack Hussein Obama mmm mmm MMMM is altogether fitting and appropriate.

WE HAVE DISCOVERED in discussions with various members of the public that there are many victims of the public schools who do not know the background or origins of the prize. And so, a little history first.

ALFRED NOBEL was a Swedish weapons merchant who invented dynamite. Dynamite was one of the very first safe-to-handle high explosive compounds. Basically it was and is nitroglycerin compounded with diatomaceous earth. Such a thing naturally had tremendous implications for warfare, and the 19th Century was quite as infested with leftist peacenicks as the present day. Nobel was condemned as a "Merchant of Death" for his invention. Allegedly out of shame but more likely to shine up his "legacy"; he endowed a prize for outstanding contributions to peace. The endowment, however, was and is funded by the sales of weapons and explosives (Nobel continued to sell the stuff, and Dynamit Nobel is today a fully functional arms manufacturer. They make a humdinger of a rifled shotgun slug round)

BEING THEREFORE FOUNDED ON THE TWIN PILLARS OF IRONY AND HYPOCRISY; And having been born of Leftist scorn; the Nobel Peace Prize is therefore altogether fitting as an award for this "President".

NOW IT IS ALLEGED BY MANY CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATORS that "President" Barack Hussein Obama mmm mmm MMMM has done nothing to deserve this prize. We disagree. Obama has - even from the early days of his campaign - denigrated these United States, and since being elected has continued to do so. He has stated as a goal of his the diminishment of our role as the world's only remaining superpower. He has intimated that he is even willing to prostitute our National interests to the benefit of some of the world's worst tyrannies. And to the snooty Scandanavian leftists who run the Nobel Prize program, this is the road to peace. To them, the greatest goal of anyone seeking peace is to get the United States of America to surrender. "President" Barack Hussein Obama mmm mmm MMMM is the best hope they have ever had. Oh, Obama has done PLENTY to deserve the Nobel.

Conspiracy theorists. Give it a rest. Please.

BE IT THE BIRTHERS OR THE TRUTHERS the tide of "Conspiracy Theory" is at an all time high-water mark. Lately we have seen theories that drug manufacturers are in bed with the Bilderberg whatever and the Rothschild something or other to collude with General Motors and "President" Obama - who is secretly in bed with the Bush family - to take over the globe and enslave us all. Or something like that. Puh-leeze.

WE AT THE ALEXANDRIA DAILY POOP DO NOT DOUBT FOR ONE MINUTE that there are various corrupt corporate and individual entities. And there have been since the beginning of time. And probably by the fourth or fifth generation of modern human beings, groups of people have conspired against other groups and individuals. Oog the flint-chipper might have made common cause with Ogg the arrowhaft maker and Ugg the bowmaker to corner the market on hunting tackle. The weak spot there is the same weak spot that eventually dooms all conspiracies. Oog was looking out for his own self, as were Ogg and Ugg. One fine day a guy named Yagg invented a way of putting feathers on arrowshafts and met another guy named Gagg who had invented a compound bow. Oog the flint-chipper saw that people would love this new superior tackle. He abandoned Ogg and Ugg and threw in with Yagg and Gagg. But since demand exeeded supply, soon Ogg and Ugg were making their own versions of the new tackle. Oog still made the warheads, and hired new people, and even ran into competition as some of his employees tried and in a few cases succeeded in making better designs of arrowheads.

Then along came some guy who found out how to make metal arrowheads, and upset the whole applecart.

"CONSPIRACY" IS A CRIMINAL JUSTICE TERM. TO CONSPIRE IS TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT THAT IS NOT ONLY MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL BUT ALSO - BY DEFINITION - CRIMINAL. You cannot "conspire" to feed the poor, heal the sick, or clothe the naked. Yet simple business arrangements have often been described as "conspiracies" by those who have neither the brains nor the wherewithal to make a similarly advantageous deal for themselves. Walmart making a deal with China to import shoes is not a "conspiracy" to force everyone else out of the shoe biz. It is an arrangement to obtain quality goods for a low price, sell them slightly above cost, and thus permit children to walk shod to school, where they will be taught the evils of doing business the Walmart way. But wait, you say. China uses underpaid workers to make those shoes! So isn't Walmart in a conspiracy with China to promote slave labor?

NO.

Walmart is in a conspiracy with Walmart to get the best stuff it can as cheaply as it can and sell it for less than anyone else. Walmart had the same idea everyone else wishes they had gotten first. If Walmart were instead Kennedymart, nobody would be bitching. The whole "Walmart Conspiracy" angle is a steaming crock.

As to true conspiracies, if there are any, their fundamental weakness and the assurance of their eventual downfall is that any conspiracy is founded by two or more entities who (although they share a few common interests) are more than anything else concerned about their own interests. An "altruistic conspiracy" is the very definition of oxymoron. At some point, the effects of the conspiracy will begin to be felt by its victims, who will then begin what will either culminate in violence and/or its equivaent of "government action/reform". The larger and more wide-ranging this conspiracy, the sooner it will reach this stage. A conspiracy between a hundred entities might survive - if very well led and managed - a quarter century, but eventually the various conflicting interests will begin to be unnerved at the attention directed as the public wises up.

Conspiracies can last only so long as the interests of the conspirators do not come into conflict. This - human nature being what it is, and human beings being what conspiracies consist of - is inevitable. Once this conflict is realized, the breaup of the conspiracy is ditto inevitable; and the only way the conspiracy will live on is in the efforts - born out of fear - between the members of the conspiracy to keep it from being uncovered.

We do not here say that conspiracies do not abound. Teenage lovers will conspire to kill interfering parents, contractors and politicians will conspire to manipulate public service projects, currency speculators and businessmen will consspire to maneuver the wealth of entire nations to their own advantage; and it has always been so and will continue until GOD comes to establish His Perfect Justice (and look out!) .

But the bald fact is, the larger the conspiracy the more human beings are involved. And each and every one of them is looking out primarily for his own interests. A conspiracy is a chain which cannot be stronger than its weakest link. The larger the conspiracy, the more links in the chain. And the more links, the greater of a weak one in a fatal position. Two people may conspire to swindle a third person and get away with it. Two dozen people may be successful in swindling a county out of some money if they do not get too greedy (but they inevitably will),

Many more than a dozen, however, and the individual interest of the participants (and the aggregate interest of various factions) will sooner or later lead to a downfall. There may well be conspiracies between well-heeled groups that have lasted for centuries. But these have largely roped out into the above mentioned denial stage. There are indeed large groups of people who have tried to garner absolute control of wealth and power unto themselves. And they will do so - or try - again if they can. But their individual members have succumbed to greed and gotten themsselves arrested and in many cases imprisoned or even executed for crimes great and small. A conspiracy requires closely enforced cooperation for the greater - and criminal - good. But he who enters into a conspiracy does not do so for the interests of the group but rather for his own interests. Conflict is inevitable, and the more participants, the greater and more disastrous the potential for disintegration.

In a like vein, the larger conspiracy alleged by the accuser, the less likely there is that there was a conspiracy in the first place. A conspiracy of two may be built of bricks. A conspiracy of three is a hut of sticks. A conspiracy of four is a shack of straw, and anything more is a fortress - no matter how formidable in appearance- of playing cards, which the merest wind might well take down. Two words: Joe Valachi.

LOOKY HERE GOOGLE.

WE ARE EXTREMELY FRUSTRATED that we allowed advertising on this blog, which is conservative and nationalist and most assuredly NOT supportive of "President" Obama and his enablers. And yet when we have tried to get help, there is no readily apparent way in which to register our objections. Our objection is that the readership of this rag, all three of them, are not about to click on an ad for "canonize Obama" T-shirts or "Single payer healthcare now" bumper stickers. Come on Google. How about some ads for firearms or Ann Coulter's latest book or Mark Levin or something?? THAT is what our readers are interested in. Putting an ad for contributions to some Ubamanista concern is like putting an ad for Zyklon B in the Bnai' Brith newsletter.

PLEASE GOOGLE!! Get us some relevant ads or we will drop out. And our apologies to our readers. We don't get to choose the ads, and we do NOT support the Left.